Le Parisien newspaper reported the magazine – which continues to make fun of religion – remains a top target for Islamic extremists and on Thursday formally filed a complaint against an unknown person after receiving a string of serious threats.

More than 60 disturbing messages, insults, and anti-Semitic remarks were posted on the magazine’s Facebook page, including one saying ‘You’re going to die!”. Another message warned of an imminent terrorist attack.

An inquiry has been launched and French police are currently investigating the “very threatening death threats” made against Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journalists.

Express beskriver Charlie Hebdos billede således

The man’s penis can be seen through his long beard, and the woman is totally naked except for her veil over her head and shoulders and a caption below reads: “The reform of Islam: Muslims, loosen up” or “Musulmans decoincez vous”

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

The Pope asserted moreover that he knows how Muslims think, and that deep down they desire peace and harmony just as Christians do.

“I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think,” he said. “They seek peace, encounter.”

“I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true,” he said.

The Pope insisted that the Islamic State does not draw its ideology from the religion of Islam, but appeals rather to the emptiness of young people and a love for violence.

“How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups,” he said. “One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things.”

“But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist,” he said.

The Pope concluded by suggesting that Islamic terrorism does not stem from any violence inherent to Islam itself, but rather from other non-religious motives, such as poverty.

“Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person,” Francis said. “You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!” he said.

First, there is no significant leadership in the modern Christian world – either religious or civil leadership – openly arguing for violence in the name of Christian doctrine, or providing it with a veneer of legitimacy. The leadership of the major denominations, from top to bottom, are foursquare against violence to enforce Christian morals, and the New Testament is notably short on violent punishments. “Yes,” I hear you say, “but Muslim leaders condemn violence too!” This is a debatable point in the specific case of violence against gays, as Andrew McCarthy has detailed, but even if you treat Islam-in-general as indistinguishable from Christianity-in-general in this regard, you still have to deal with radical Islam. Radical Islam is a significant, large-scale political movement around the world that is very much openly, proudly in favor of violence in service of the dictates of radical readings of Islamic law.

The radicals are not a small, isolated, fringe movement. They control territory, ISIS being the most extreme example, as well as Al Qaeda during its residencies in Afghanistan and Sudan. They have tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of volunteers, and larger numbers of sympathizers, such as the many people in Muslim countries who tell pollsters they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. (ThinkProgress touted a Pew study a few years ago finding that 57% of the population of 11 Muslim countries had a negative view of Al Qaeda - which means the people who didn’t have a negative view of Al Qaeda are a minority of the general population comparable to supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in the United States.) They have varying degrees influence in any number of governments (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) – the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are all Islamic, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are well-financed, including by wealthy donors and the Saudi government and religious establishments. They have major support from radical pulpits and extensive networks on the web, connections to which turn up regularly in “lone wolf” cases. It is true that most any belief system or creed, religious or secular, inspires some crackpots who turn it to violence. There are some radical Christians. But it is not realistic to suggest that Christianity, or most other religious or political causes around the world, has an active global movement of this prominence, influence, resources and infrastructure that endorses the use of violence for the cause.

Second, drawing these parallels completely ignores the scale of the problem. The State Department issues an annual report on terrorism around the globe, and the carnage is enormous: over the past ten years (2006-2015), the State Department reports 115,023 terrorist attacks, resulting in 190,008 people killed, 329,782 injured, 73,758 kidnapped or taken hostage. The pace is escalating: the past two years (even with State’s annual caveat of “conservative estimates of terrorism in Syria”) have seen an average of 12,619 attacks per year, 30,528 killed a year, 35,056 wounded and 10,809 kidnapped or taken hostage. And the attacks are heavily concentrated in nations with active radical Islamic movements (albeit, in a few cases, with counter-movements that commit their own atrocities).

This — all of this — is not just stupid, it’s offensive. Or rather, it’s offensive because it’s so stupid, and does nothing but sow confusion.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the bit from Crux. The parallel between baptized Italian Catholics who kill family members and Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians and others (including other Muslims they deem heretics) in the name of Allah is crazy. Guess what, Francis? All across the Islamic world, Muslim men steal, they beat their wives, they cheat their neighbor, and so on, not because Islam tells them to, but because they are human beings. Same in Christian countries, and in every society on earth. At issue is Muslim slaughtering priests at the altar, turning non-Muslim girls into sex slaves, blowing up churches, and carrying out all manner of barbaric evil explicitly and unapologetically in the name of their religion. You can call it a twisted interpretation of Islam, or condemn it for other reasons. In the cases of the baptized Catholic who kills his mother-in-law, or the believing Muslim who does the same, in neither instance is their religion a motivating factor in the crime. It is incidental to their violent acts. The terrorism that ISIS and its supporters carry out is done openly in the name of Islam, motivated by their interpretation of the religion.

I can’t decide whether it’s more disturbing if the Pope really cannot see the fallacy here, or if he is just saying what he figures is diplomatically correct.

Second, this idea of Francis’s that economics, not religion, is behind Islamic terrorism, is materialist claptrap that one would think a Pope is beyond falling for. The world is full of desperately poor people who do not slaughter priests. The world is also full of desperately poor Muslim people who do not slaughter priests, shoot up nightclubs, mow down people with trucks, and so forth. In fact, poverty is not much of a factor at all in who becomes radicalized by Salafi Islam.

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

Yesterday, when an Afghan migrant and Islamic State devotee in Germany began attacking commuters on a busy train, he was quickly shot and killed by security. Similarly, the horrific truck attack last week in Nice was only brought to an end when the French police shot and killed Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who also appears to have been linked with ISIS.

When comparable knife attacks and car rammings have happened in Israel, security forces there acted similarly. Of course, on many occasions, Israel’s border police and army have managed to shoot and merely disable assailants. But when that has not been possible, Palestinian attackers have been shot and killed in an effort to save the lives of Israeli civilians in immediate harm’s way. It would seem morally obvious that sometimes this is what has to be done to bring a terror assault to the swiftest possible conclusion.

Yet Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom had an objection to Israelis defending themselves in this way. In January, when allegations were made in the Swedish parliament that Israel was perpetrating “extrajudicial executions” of Palestinian attackers, Wallstrom gave credence to these allegations. “It is vital that there is a thorough, credible investigation into these deaths in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability,” she said. By the same standard, we should now expect to hear Sweden’s foreign ministry call upon their French and German neighbors to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which the German train and Nice attackers were killed.

Wallstrom’s talk of bringing about “possible accountability” is especially galling. The notion that it is members of Israel’s security forces who should be interrogated and punished for acting to neutralize a terror threat is an unspeakable moral inversion. But, of course, in the event that there was serious reason to believe that wrongdoing had been committed by a member of the security services then that would be a legal matter.

Following last week’s terror attack in Nice, a Belgian Jewish organization issued a highly unusual statement charging that, had European media not spent months “ignoring” Palestinian terror against Israel out of “political correctness,” the idea of a truck being used as a weapon wouldn’t have come as such a shock. But it now turns out that European officials did something much worse than merely ignoring Palestinian attacks: They issued a 39-page report, signed by almost every EU country, blaming these attacks on “the occupation” rather than the terrorists. The obvious corollary was that European countries had no reason to fear similar attacks and, therefore, they didn’t bother taking precautions that could have greatly reduced the casualties.

The most shocking part of the Nice attack was how high those casualties were: The truck driver managed to kill 84 people before he was stopped. By comparison, as the New York Times reported on Monday, Israel has suffered at least 32 car-ramming attacks since last October, yet all these attacks combined have killed exactly two people (shootings and stabbings are much deadlier). Granted, most involved private cars, but even attacks using buses or heavy construction vehicles never approached the scale of Nice’s casualties. The deadliest ramming attack in Israel’s history, in 2001, killed eight.

(…)

Now consider the abovementioned EU document, first reported in the EUobserver last Friday, and its implications for both those counterterrorism techniques. The document is an internal assessment of the wave of Palestinian terror that began last October, written by EU diplomats in the region and endorsed in December 2015 by all EU countries with “embassies in Jerusalem and Ramallah,” the EUobserver said.

And what did it conclude? That the attacks were due to “the Israeli occupation… and a long-standing policy of political, economic and social marginalisation of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” to “deep frustration amongst Palestinians over the effects of the occupation, and a lack of hope that a negotiated solution can bring it to an end.” This, the report asserted, was “the heart of the matter”; factors like rampant Palestinian incitement and widespread Islamist sentiment, if they were mentioned at all, were evidently dismissed as unimportant.

The report’s first implication is obvious: If Palestinian attacks stem primarily from “the occupation,” there’s no reason to think anything similar could happen in Europe, which isn’t occupying anyone (at least in its own view; Islamists might not agree). Consequently, there’s also no need to learn from Israel’s methods of dealing with such attacks.

In contrast, had EU diplomats understood the major role played by Palestinian incitement—for instance, the endless Internet memes urging Palestinians to stab, run over and otherwise kill Jews, complete with detailed instructions on how to do so—they might have realized that similar propaganda put out by Islamic State, urging people to use similar techniques against Westerners, could have a similar effect. Had they understood the role played by Islamist sentiments—fully 89 percent of Palestinians supported a Sharia-based state in a Pew poll last year, one of the highest rates in the world—they might have realized that similar sentiments among some European Muslims posed a similar threat. And had they realized all this, the crowds in Nice might not have been left virtually unprotected.

No less telling, however, was the report’s explanation for Israel’s relatively low death toll. Rather than crediting the Israeli police for managing to stop most of the attacks quickly, before they had claimed many victims, it accused them of “excessive use of force… possibly amounting in certain cases to unlawful killings.”

If the EU’s consensus position is that shooting terrorists in mid-rampage constitutes “excessive use of force,” European policemen may understandably hesitate to do the same. In Nice, for instance, the rampage continued for two kilometers while policemen reportedly “ran 200 meters behind the truck trying to stop it”; the police caught up only when a civilian jumped into the truck’s cab and wrestled the driver, slowing him down. Yet even then, an eyewitness said, “They kept yelling at him and when he did not step out – they saw him from the window taking his gun out.” Only then did they open fire.

Through the last 18 months of jihadist terror in France, a simple pattern is emerging: it keeps getting worse. If the January 2015 attacks were aimed at specific groups – Jews and blasphemers – the November follow-up was more indiscriminate. At the Bataclan and at the cafes the Islamists killed young adults, out being European hedonists. This time, it’s gone a step further. In Nice, it is the people at large – families and groups of friends – doing nothing more provocative than attending a national celebration. Ten children were among the dead.

Unfortunately, similar attacks on Christians are rarely recounted, although ISIS has made its intentions clear: “the Christian community… “will not have safety, even in your dreams, until you embrace Islam. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women….”

Certainly Islamist radicals have not ignored this proclamation, even though accounts of their successful efforts may be hard to come by.

Only a scouring of Catholic news reports exposes an ongoing litany of desecration, arson and abuse. For example, a recent newsletter from Federation for Europa Christiana recounts (in French) the following:

“At Martigues…three successive attacks in May 2016: first the pastor extinguished a malicious fire on the altar of the church of the Madeleine. This same priest was later attacked and his eye was blackened….

“Then, at the Saint-Genest church, the same priest discovered the open tabernacle and communion wafers thrown to the ground…

“In April, 2016, all the crucifixes and crosses were shattered at the cemetery of La Chapelle-du-Bard….”

All told, 810 attacks on French Christian places of worship and Christian cemeteries took place in 2015.

“In recent weeks, Catholics in France and Belgium — countries still recovering from brutal ISIS attacks — have been hit with numerous acts of violence and aggression, including fires set in churches, an assault on a priest, the desecration of a tabernacle.

“More than 100 Catholic websites… of churches and congregations were hacked by suspected Tunisian cyber-jihadists who call themselves the Fallaga Team.”

On Saturday, ahead of today’s holiday dedicated to Archangel Gabriel, a group of Serbs came under fire from automatic weapons as they were cleaning the grounds of the garbage and debris that local ethnic Albanians are dumping at the ruins of the desecrated temple. Nobody was injured during the incident, that has been reported to the Kosovo police.

Today, about 100 villagers and their guests from various parts of the Kosovsko Pomoravlje District, along with some citizens who had left the area as early as in the 1970s, gathered at the monastery and celebrated the day in peace, and without incidents.

“Visiting my hometown brings back beautiful childhood memories, but scenes like the desecrated grave of my former neighbor - which was done during the past year - point out to the reality and the difficult lives that people who remained are leading.” Mijomir Lalic, who now lives in the town of Smederevo, told Serbia’s state broadcaster RTS.

Nenad Kojic, a professor at the Pristina University, now relocated to Kosovska Mitrovica, said those who live in the village now “have no intention of leaving.”

“It’s all the same that they destroyed our holy places, they cannot destroy our faith and our hope,” said Kojic.

The Binac monastery, dedicated to Archangel Gabriel, is one of the oldest Serbian temples built in the 14th century. It was completely destroyed in July 1999, after the war in Kosovo and after the arrival of international forces there.

Since late May, Christians in Egypt have been the victims of at least a dozen sectarian attacks, and activists and politicians say the government has done little to stop it, despite Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi’s early overtures to the Coptic community and their staunch support of him.

“It is escalating in a very short time,” said Mina Thabet, programme director for minorities and vulnerable groups with the Egyptian Commission of Rights and Freedoms.

Among the assaults was one in late May on an elderly Coptic woman in Minya, who was stripped, beaten and paraded naked because of a rumour that her son was having a relationship with a Muslim woman. Seven homes in the town were set ablaze.

Victims said the police response was late and insufficient.

Sectarian tensions heated up even more on June 30, three years to the day after the beginning of the protests that led to the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, when a Coptic priest was gunned down in Al Arish, North Sinai in an attack claimed by the IS group. The group accused the priest of “waging a war against Islam”.

As gruesome as that attack was, the majority of the incidents have not taken place in the IS stronghold in northern Sinai, but in the Governorate of Minya, which is nestled along the Nile river about 250 kilometres south of Cairo.

(…)

Hours before the priest in Al Arish was shot, the under-construction house of a Coptic man in Minya was torched by a mob who thought he was building a church – despite his having signed an affidavit in the presence of police, the mayor and the local sheikh saying the structure would be a residence and would be used for no other purpose. The four adjacent homes, which belonged to his brothers, were also burned.

The building of churches is a flashpoint for sectarian tensions in Egypt. Per capita, there are far fewer churches serving the Christian community than there are mosques serving the Muslim community, and the building of new churches is strictly restricted under Egyptian law and requires special permissions. Christians for decades have had difficulty obtaining the necessary approvals and often face fierce opposition from Muslim neighbors.

While the recent violence has been concentrated in and around Minya, other Christian strongholds in the country have suffered as well. For example, an attack occurred on July 2 in the governorate of Sohag, which is about 500km south of Cairo and also has a large Christian population, when the teenage daughter of a priest was grabbed from behind by the hair and stabbed in the neck in what appeared to be a failed attempt to slit her throat. She was rescued by a bystander and survived the attack.

Mr. Juncker insisted that however bad the “migrant crisis” and terrorism in Europe gets, the EU will never call into question the free movement of people within the bloc.

“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.

(…)

Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.

The headlines go from bad to worse for the UK and EU establishment as yet another new poll this weekend, by Opinium, shows “Brexit” leading by a remarkable 19 points (52% chose to leave the EU against 33% choosing to keep the status quo). This result comes after 2 polls Friday night showing a 10-point lead for “leave” which sparked anxiety across markets. This surge in “leave” probability comes despite an additional 1.5 million voters having registered this week (which many expected to increase “remain” support). Further anger towards EU was exposed when former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith warned that seven new prisons will need to be built in the UK by 2030 to cope with the rising number of migrant criminals (presumedly due to ’staying’ in the EU). With market anxiety rising, as One River’s CIO notes, if Brexit happens, gold will soar.

Public opposition to the European Union is growing in all key member states, according to a new survey of voters in ten EU countries.

Public disaffection with the EU is being fueled by the bloc’s mishandling of the refugee and debt crises, according to the survey, which interviewed voters in Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden.

Public anger is also being fueled by the growing number of diktats issued by the unelected officials running the Brussels-based European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the bloc, which has been relentless in its usurpation of sovereignty from the 28 nation states that comprise the European Union.

The 17-page report, “Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit,” was published by the Pew Research Center on June 7, just two weeks before the June 23 referendum on whether Britain will become the first country to leave the European Union (Brexit blends the words Britain and exit).

(…)

Although the survey does not explicitly say so, the findings almost certainly reflect growing anger at the anti-democratic nature of the EU and its never-ending power grabs.

On May 31, the European Union, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft,unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. Critics say the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe because the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

On May 24, the unelected president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, vowedto use sanctions to isolate far-right or populist governments that are swept into office on the wave of popular anger against migration. Under powers granted to the European Commission in 2014, Juncker can trigger a “rule of law alert” for countries that depart from “the common constitutional traditions of all member states.” Rather than accepting the will of the people at the voting booth, Juncker can impose sanctions to address “systemic deficiencies” in EU member states.

On May 4, Juncker warned that EU countries that failed to “show solidarity” by refusing take in migrants would face a fine of €250,000 ($285,000) per migrant.

On April 20, the European Political Strategy Centre, an in-house EU think tank that reports directly to Juncker, proposed that the European Union establish its own central intelligence agency, which would answer only to unelected bureaucrats. According to the plan, the 28 EU member states would have a “legally binding duty to share information.”

(…)

In a recent interview with Le Monde, Juncker said that if Britons voted to leave the EU, they would be treated as “deserters”:

“I am sure the deserters will not be welcomed with open arms. If the British should say ‘No’ — which I hope they do not — then life in the EU will not go on as before. The United Kingdom will be regarded as a third country and will have its fur stroked the wrong way (caresser dans le sens du poil). If the British leave Europe, people will have to face the consequences. It is not a threat but our relations will no longer be what they are today.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, Giles Merritt, director of the Friends of Europe think tank in Brussels, summed it up this way:

“The EU policy elites are in panic. If the British vote to leave the shock will be so ghastly that they will finally wake up and realize that they can no longer ignore demands for democratic reform. They may have to dissolve the EU as it is and try to reinvent it, both in order to bring the Brits back and because they fear that the whole political order will be swept away unless they do.”

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.”

- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC

You are witnessing what will be shown to future generations as the reason for the fall of an Empire.

At current immigration levels and disappearing birth rates native Europeans are destined to become a minority in their own countries within decades. This is already the case for many of Europe’s largest cities.

Europeans have effectively lost their right to exist as cultures and nations in their own homelands and are facing extinction.

Millions of young Muslim men leave behind their family, pay thousands to criminal traffickers to reach the land they have been promised by European politicians illegally.

Dubbed by the media as “refugees”, they cross through 6-10 safe countries to reach wealthy nations like Germany or Sweden where they hope to receive a better life at the expense of the taxpayer.

Only a fraction of them are Syrian, as they enter unfiltered, without any documents and without any legitimate right to claim asylum. Women and children are rarely seen, except in the cherry-picked sob stories of the media.

Any indigenous resistance of Europeans who refuse to hand over the countries of their ancestors to often radical and criminal Muslim foreigners is labeled “hateful”, “racist”, even “Nazi”.

The level of cultural, moral and political subversion with egalitarian and Marxist ideologies has reached levels the KGB would never have dreamed of. Equality and tolerance are lies that serve none but a few.

The Left, mainly orchestrated by Zionist interests, is destroying our countries from the inside. Patriotism, the most basic and fundamental trait of any nation that wants to survive, has become something to be ashamed of.

Feminism has destroyed family values and birth rates. Healthy nationalism has been replaced with a culture of guilt, self-hatred, apathy, degeneracy and pathological altruism. We are told to embrace “diversity”, in reality this simply means instead of just being a global minority, Europeans are supposed to become a minority in their own countries as well. No civilized society can keep up with the birth rate of third world immigrants, especially when the main goal is integration rather than assimilation. Parallel societies breed poverty, crime and radicalism.

Multiculturalism has never, at any time in human history, worked anywhere. If you believe otherwise, you’re delusional. In fact it’s the primary reason for every major conflict.

The crimes committed by the EU against the European peoples are directly in violation of the 1948 UN genocide convention, Article II: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Because of this injustice, far-right parties everywhere in Europe are gaining astonishing amounts of support, becoming the biggest parties in some countries.

Any European that does not rise up to defend his country from foreign invasion because he’s too scared of words does not deserve it.

We are still at a point where you will not get imprisoned for your political opinion in most European countries, but this will change very soon. Do not be apathetic, do not be weak. Be someone that can be proud to call himself European.

There is nothing “modern” or free-market about the EU. It is an old-fashioned cartel whose roots lie in the Confederation of the Rhine and Bonaparte’s Continental System. Like those precedents, it is a political project with dirigiste economic objectives bolted on – most notoriously the unworkable euro currency. It aspired to extinguish national and popular will across Europe and enslave the continent to the delusional aspirations of a selfish and bureaucratic elite. With the complicity of the media, for decades it contrived to brainwash electorates into accepting its mendacious claims. Now, that is all over.

Across Europe, over the past week, there has been a wave of revulsion against the EU, its tyrannical diktats, its contempt for the will of electorates, its economic incompetence and its transparent lies. Suddenly, all the hype, the jargon and the pretence have been stripped away. The evil empire’s lost credibility can never be recovered. We are living in a new climate where any politician who attempts to comply with Brussels will forfeit domestic acceptance. The U-turn by Alexis Tsipras, now attempting to railroad through a democratic parliament a “bailout” package harsher than that rejected by 62 per cent of the Greek electorate just ten days ago has destroyed the last vestige of credibility of the political class.

When even “revolutionary” politicians with a massive mandate to resist Brussels roll over before the EU juggernaut – now more accurately to be described as a rickety Heath Robinson contraption – the days of the political class, as currently constituted, are numbered. And it is in this crisis situation for the discredited EU and its Toytown currency that a referendum on continuing British membership is impending.

Now is the time for Eurosceptics to press home their advantage.

(…)

The EU is 64 years old and it is showing its age. It was the product of panicky post-War reaction to a recent frightening experience, when the German guns menaced England from Calais. What menaces us from Calais today is a more successful invasion by feral aliens sponsored by the EU. We must get out and that view is rapidly becoming a majority rather than a minority opinion.

In London, we have had Israeli orchestras, theatre companies and even string quartets howled down by mobs during performances, and Israeli-performed shows cancelled because the venues hosting them just do not want the bother. Last year, the Tricycle Theatre in London refused to proceed with a festival of “Jewish” culture because a tiny proportion of the festival’s funding was coming from the Israeli embassy in London.

The campaign is obviously organized. The same names crop up again and again. Little, if any, rigour is paid to whether the signatories of such letters even do what they say do, or have opinions worthy of any note. Beneath the barely-built veneer of “professionals objecting to something in their own profession,” is just the same tiny number of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish obsessives. A sprinkling of “as a Jew” Jews, like Margolyes, help, of course. But the aim is clear. These people, step by step, want to make every expression of Israeli and Jewish cultural life subject to their idea of how a nation under constant threat of terrorist bombardment should behave. They denounce Israel as a militaristic society and then attempt to outlaw every non-militaristic cultural and artistic expression from that society.

It is the bigotry of our time. And if unchecked, it will lead in the same direction as it historically has done.

In his tour d’horizon of the Palestinian territories, Tenenbom uncovers the fact that there are almost 300 pro-Palestinian foreign NGOs working (that is, agitating) in the West Bank and another hundred in Gaza, most financed by German taxpayers. Moreover, aid to the Palestinians by the European Union and the United Nations is the highest, per capita, in the world. Which might explain why, as Tenenbom keeps noticing all over the West Bank, so many Palestinian officials and activists are driving Mercedes.

(…)

Relying on his unconventional journalistic techniques, Tenenbom elicits a string of unguarded comments from the activists who work so diligently to keep the narrative of Palestinian suffering in the news. He opens a unique window allowing us to see how the victims’ game works in Palestine. For example, the popular Palestinian leader Jibril Rajoub—with the help of willing European collaborators—succeeds in staging a series of morality plays that perpetuate the big lie about his people’s historical innocence and unique suffering. Rajoub lets Tobi the German in on one such full-scale operatic production in the West Bank village of Bi’lin. With compliant Western reporters told where and when to gather, Palestinian youths comes on stage and, on cue, begin stoning Israeli soldiers. The soldiers ignore the “youths,” but the stones get larger and they eventually respond. The self-righteous Western reporters now have their “story” of Israeli violence for the day. Moreover, the event is filmed for a documentary by an Israeli leftist financed by (what else?) a German NGO. Tenenbom knows something about theater, and his satirical account of this staged episode is as priceless as it is depressing.

Tenenbom’s method produces pure satiric gold, as when the wife of an American rabbi who heads a one-man organization called “Rabbis for Human Rights” (financed by a European NGO) can’t contain herself and admits to Tenenbom: “You can’t change him. Being a human rights activist in our time is to be a persona, not a philosophy; it’s a fad, it’s a fashion. A human rights activist does not look for facts or logic; it’s about a certain dress code, ‘cool’ clothing, about language, diction, expressions and certain manners. No facts will persuade him.”

Another highlight of the book is Tenenbom’s visit—arranged by a European NGO—to an inverted Potemkin village of Bedouin encampments in the Negev. In the original historical version of the Potemkin tall tale, the Russian Czar created a few model villages with false facades to convince Western visitors that all was well within the empire. In the twenty-first century version of the tale perfected by anti-Israel NGOs, the technique is to make Palestinian and Bedouin villages look as awful as possible on the outside even when they are relatively well off on the inside. After all, it can never be admitted that the Palestinian people, despite their suffering at the hands of the Jews, constitute the most prosperous Arab community (with the exception of the oil-rich Gulf monarchies) in the Middle East.

This follows a long-established pattern: once the momentum of a relentlessly expansionary empire such as Brussels is halted, it does not remain stationary – it goes into reverse. When Greece departs from the euro currency, what will happen? Will some other basket-case state be shoe-horned in to replace it? Hardly – not because the madmen in Brussels are not demented enough to try it, but because the German electorate would not stand for it.

So, the Greeks’ referendum decision (kudos, once again, to the highly professional opinion pollsters who were only 22 per cent out in their forecasts this time) means that the contraction of the EU has begun. That is its real, historic significance. That is why screams of anguish are being emitted by the fanatical expansionists in Brussels who, without a twinge of remorse, provoked a bloody war in the Ukraine, in a cack-handed attempt to increase the number of their vassal states.

(…)

That is an attitude increasingly engulfing European youth and it will eventually affect British youngsters too. The best way forward for Eurosceptics is to strain every nerve to convert younger voters to this view before polling day in the referendum. Remember the old canard that all UKIP supporters were elderly men in blazers? Apparently last May there were almost four million of them.

In mainland Europe the Eurosceptic profile is increasingly youthful. By itself, the cult of “yoof” is inane, but harnessing youthful idealism and enthusiasm to the cause of recovering our national sovereignty makes solid sense. Farage is right, too, to espouse a positive Eurosceptic agenda: let’s free ourselves to trade with the rest of the world, let’s escape from a cage controlled by elderly men in grey suits, let’s unshackle our economy from the self-interested red tape of Brussels regulation.

Of course, the Eurosceptic youth vote in countries such as Greece and Spain is unfortunately attached to looney-left parties such as Syriza and Podemos, but that is no reason for supposing it cannot mature with the voters themselves, who may be persuaded to ditch Marxist along with Europhile delusions and finally embrace a sensible course.

Youth is by instinct anti-authoritarian and authoritarianism does not come more repellent than the Brussels bureaucracy. Young people see, behind the photocalls, the large cars, the saluting sentries, the pompous jargon and the solemn press conferences, the underlying reality: this is a bunch of buffoons who have created an unworkable project that is collapsing around them and they haven’t a clue what to do. They tried to suppress economic reality by ideological imperative and now the house of cards is crashing down.

Merkel, the overrated hausfrau, Hollande, the socialist spendthrift, self-pitying Juncker, loud-mouth Schulz and all the other clowns are the incompetents who have broken Europe, while flooding it with countless millions of hostile aliens destroying its culture. It is time for Britain to get out from under this doomed structure before we are crushed by the wreckage.

I have had my doubts about this for years. The EU system is so fundamentally flawed and corrupt that it is doubtful whether it can be reformed in any meaningful way. Corruption and a chronic lack of accountability are not flaws in the system; they are there by design. The EU oligarchs have proven themselves very adept at exploiting crises to further more federal integration. This even goes for problems they have themselves created.

The entire EU system since the days of Jean Monnet has been built on creating a European superstate through deceiving the European public by presenting it as merely an elaborate free trade zone. Lies and deceit have become part of the structural DNA of the European Union.

The EU has essentially bribed the political class throughout much of the European continent, and bought their personal loyalty and support. If they become a part of the EU system, they receive well paid jobs. Moreover, they don’t have to answer to the average citizen for what they do, or how they use or abuse their power. It is easy to see why some people find this combination alluring.

The EU elites have a strong vested interest in keeping up a system that provides them with money, power and prestige. For this reason, any attempts at “reform” are likely to be purely cosmetic and designed to appease the masses. The EU has become a bureaucratic colossus. Just like all bureaucratic systems, it has a natural tendency to try to expand its reach.

I don’t see any solution to this other than to formally and publicly abolish all of the institutions of the European Union. For something like this to happen, the EU would have to face massive and sustained popular pressure throughout the continent. This is unlikely to happen without a major and prolonged economic crisis that destroys the credibility and legitimacy of the EU in the eyes of the general public. We may be heading for just such an event in the years to come.

It is not fair to blame the EU for all of Europe’s ills. For instance, low birth rates are currently found throughout the continent, also in European nations that are not members of the EU. However, the EU makes some existing problems even worse. It also adds new ones of its own making.

If we look at the big picture and the geopolitical situation, Europe as a whole faces major challenges in the coming decades. Two of the biggest ones are the escalating Jihad of radical Islam, and large-scale illegal immigration due to the population explosion in parts of the global South. The EU does not adequately address any of these threats. On the contrary, it makes them worse. The EU continues promoting Muslim mass immigration to Europe. The organization also seeks to force all of its member states to accept illegal immigrants from Africa and the Islamic world. By embracing Islamization and the gradual displacement of native Europeans, the EU has arguably become the anti-European Union.

Future historians will debate whether the EU was a good idea gone bad, or whether it was a bad idea from the very beginning. However, in my opinion, there can be no doubt that the EU as it exists today is a failure. The organization does not solve Europe’s most important challenges, and it adds new problems of its own making.

I cannot predict exactly how or when the EU will finally fall apart, but I strongly suspect that a major economic meltdown will play a major part in its collapse.

Crowds of young men were filmed using crowbars to break into lorries queuing to get into the Channel port.

The figures show migrants were stowing away in cars and trucks at a rate of 90 an hour.

But the true figure will be considerably higher, as many made it through borders and as far as Bedfordshire before being caught. It has raised fears many more could be on our shores without police knowledge.

Ten migrants were found in the back of a lorry parked in Folkstone, Kent, at about 4.30pm yesterday.

They were sent to Dover Immigration Centre where they are now under their care.

Seven suspected illegal immigrants were arrested at Toddington Services on the M1 in Bedfordshire. One told reporters he had come from Sudan wanting to go to a British university.

With nearly 400 more migrants reaching Calais every week to add to the 4,000 already camping out and waiting for the chance to slip into Britain, truckers leaders called on the French authorities to do more to protect their members.

The crisis started escalating on Tuesday when a strike by French ferry workers facing the sack shut Calais down and migrants flocked to the stationary lorries stuck in traffic jams.

Cross-Channel services were returning to normal yesterday but David Cameron described the scenes as “totally unacceptable”.

He said it was important to work with France to tackle the problem and warned against “either side trying to point the finger of blame.”

But the Freight Transport Association (FTA) said France must do more to tame the “perfect storm”.

The IDF went to extraordinary lengths last summer to prevent civilian casualties while fighting Hamas terrorists in Gaza, achieving a remarkable 1:1 civilian to combatant ratio, but according to international legal experts it went too far in avoiding casualties among the enemy population.

Willy Stern of Vanderbilt Law School, in an article to be published next Monday in the Weekly Standard, details what he found while spending two weeks with attorneys in the IDF’s international law department dubbed “Dabla” as well as front-line commanders, and documents the IDF’s “legal zeal” which as he notes has not stemmed the deluge of international criticism against it.

Stern listed how the IDF bombarded Gaza residents with thousands of telephone calls, leaflet drops, TV and radio messages, as well as calls to influential citizens urging them to evacuate residents, and in doing so gave the terrorist enemy detailed information about its troop movements.

“It was abundantly clear that IDF commanders had gone beyond any mandates that international law requires to avoid civilian casualties,” writes Stern. He reported how Dabla attorneys have to sign off on a “target card” for each airstrike on terror targets, with the cards enumerating all of the relevant data about the planned strike.

In contrast, the Hamas “doctrine manual” captured by the IDF in the Shejaiya neighborhood early last August documents how the terror group urges its fighters to embed themselves among civilians in hopes that the IDF will kill civilians.

“Hamas’s playbook calls for helping to kill its own civilians, while the IDF’s playbook goes to extreme? - ?some say inappropriate? - ?lengths to protect innocent life in war,” reads the article.

“IDF harming fight against terror”

Indeed, international legal experts quoted in the article argued that the IDF’s actions do go to inappropriate measures, and may end up harming the ability to fight terrorist organizations.

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, a military law expert at European University Viadrina in Frankfurt, Germany, was brought by Dabla to train IDF commanders about armed conflict laws.

Heinegg was quoted saying the IDF went to “great and noble lengths“ to avoid civilian casualties, but warned the IDF is taking “many more precautions than are required.”

As a result, he expressed his fear that the IDF “is setting an unreasonable precedent for other democratic countries of the world who may also be fighting in asymmetric wars against brutal non-state actors who abuse these laws.”

Sharing his assessment was Pnina Sharvit Baruch, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and former Dabla chief.

She said legal advisers from other militaries around the world confront her with “recurring claims” that the IDF “is going too far in its self-imposed restrictions intended to protect civilians, and that this may cause trouble down the line for other democratic nations fighting organized armed groups.”

Michael Schmitt, director of the Stockton Center for the Study for International Law at the US Naval War College, also agreed that the IDF is creating a dangerous state of affairs that may harm the West in its fight against terrorism.

“The IDF’s warnings certainly go beyond what the law requires, but they also sometimes go beyond what would be operational good sense elsewhere,” he warned.

“People are going to start thinking that the United States and other Western democracies should follow the same examples in different types of conflict. That’s a real risk,” said Schmitt.

The 14, all members of a now-banned Islamist group called Forsane Alizza (”The Knights of Pride” in Arabic), are charged with “criminal conspiracy related to a terrorist enterprise”. Some also face charges of illegal possession of weapons. All face prison terms of ten years if found guilty.

The group was dismantled amid a crackdown on radicals shortly after a 2012 killing spree in southern France by Mohamed Merah, who attacked a Jewish school and soldiers, killing seven people before being gunned down by police.

The “hit list” was found during a March 2012 raid on the home of group leader Mohamed Achamlane, 37, in which they also seized an English-language manual on how to build a nuclear bomb, along with three demilitarised assault rifles, three revolvers and “easy recipes” for home-made explosives.

On Achamlane’s hard disk, investigators found a file called “target.txt”, containing the names of ten Jewish stories, five of which belonged to Hyper Cacher.

Achamlane, who has previous convictions for offences related to weapons and violence, denies any plans to carry out attacks and said the group’s aim was simply to “unite young Muslims“.

Thanks to “Dawoud”, an acquaintance working for Orange, Mohamed Achamlane, the self-proclaimed “emir” of Forsane Alizza, also received a “small gift”, specifically a list of names, addresses, landline and mobile telephone numbers of political personalities such as Nicolas Sarkozy, Roselyne Bachelot, Édouard Balladur, Jean-Louis Boorlo, Dominique de Villepin, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Jean-Louis Debré and even Philippe Douste-Blazy. Forsane Alizza also obtained details of media figures such as Éric Zemmour [Jewish anti-immigration commentator] or Silhem Hachbi of the movement “Ni pute, ni soumise” ["Neither bitch, nor submissive", a sort of brown women feminist movement]. Insatiable, Mohamed Achamlane had even demanded details of “cops, judges, MPs, etc., so we have a big database to have a means of exerting major pressure.”

In a file called “UMP data.odt” [UMP was the major right-wing party in France, Sarkozy's party], the anti-terrorist judges also discovered that the Islamists had “personal data of members of the UMP, including MPs, former ministers and media personalities,” including “addresses, telephone numbers, electronic messages, vehicles, number of children, professions”.

Last week’s rancid pro-BDS statements to an approving Cairo audience by Orange CEO Stéphane Richard, indicating his desire to immediately sever his company’s links to Israel, should come as no surprise to those who follow French politics. Orange, which maintains a licensing agreement with the Israeli cellphone company Partner Communications, is partly owned by the French government, making France at least indirectly complicit with Richard’s anti-Semitic, pro-BDS statement.

(…)

More disturbing than Richard’s initial repugnant comments however, were comments made by Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador to the United States. In response to a stinging backlash from Israel as well as its supporters, including prominent Democratic supporter and Partner shareholder Haim Saban and Republican mogul Sheldon Adelson, Araud tweeted the following; “4th Geneva convention: settlement policy in occupied territories is illegal. It is illegal to contribute to it in any way.” Rather than expressing revulsion over Richard’s Cairo comments, Araud seemed to be expressing support for them.

Naturally, Twitter goers pointed out Araud’s hypocrisy, noting that he was quick to criticize Israel while failing to acknowledge other, infinitely more egregious occupations like those of Tibet, Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus. Others (including this writer) pointed out that Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Israeli “settlements.” Prominent law professor and recognized international law expert Eugene Kontorovich noted that Araud’s position was not consistent with past legal precedent.

(…)

There is perhaps no country on the European continent that has done more to harm Israel’s political and legal standing than France. In fact, it is safe to say that France, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has caused more political harm to Israel than the entire Arab world collectively.

Both in private and public forums, French political leaders have consistently been dismissive of Israeli political concerns and insulting to its leaders. In private, French leaders have been caught on hot microphones bashing Israel or its leaders. In one such instance, President Nicolas Sarkozy, knowing that he had an approving audience, told President Obama, “I cannot stand [Netanyahu]. He is a liar.”

(…)

All this anti-Israel French activity is occurring as anti-Semitic attacks against Jews in France continue without letup. In May, two Parisian Jews were set upon by a mob of forty and beaten in broad daylight. A week prior, another Jew was attacked while leaving his synagogue. In April, a female Israeli journalist (identified as such by the Hebrew lettering on her equipment) reporting on a plane crash in the French Alps, was harassed by a group of French Muslims in full view of passersby who did nothing to intervene.

France’s rancid anti-Israeli foreign policies coupled with rampant anti-Semitism within its borders are demonstrative of a sick and diseased nation that has irreversibly lost its moral compass. It is difficult to imagine France plunging any deeper into the abyss but then again, up until a few days ago, I thought that France had hit rock-bottom. Clearly, I was badly mistaken.

The main theme of the film is the 3,500-years of “Jewish domination of the world.” It focuses on three “Jewish” historical figures (one of whom was not Jewish): the Spanish philosopher and Torah scholar Moses Maimonides, Charles Darwin (who was not a Jew), and German-American philosopher Leo Strauss.

Here are some narrative excerpts from the film, which opens with images of the Star of David and a replica of the Temple in Jerusalem:

The Mastermind, whose roots go back thousands of years, who rules, burns, destroys, starves the world, creates wars, organizes revolutions and coups, establishes states within states — this ‘intellect’ is not only Turkey’s curse, but the curse of the entire world. Who is this mastermind? The answer is hidden inside truths and facts that can never be called conspiracy theories. …

This story begins in the very old days, 3,500 years ago, when Moses brought his people out of Egypt to Jerusalem. The only guide he had was the Ten Commandments… We have to look for the mastermind in Jerusalem where the sons of Israel live. …

Maimonides… who lived in the Middle Ages believed that ‘the Jews are the Masters, and all other people are to be their slaves’”

The film then features several pro-Erdogan pundits, academics and journalists, commenting on the mastermind. “As they destroy the entire world, the Jews are searching for [the lost] Ark of Covenant.” says one. “The Jews use Darwin’s theory [of evolution] to assert that God created them – but everyone else evolved from apes,” says another. One claims that the Jews believe that they, the descendants of Isaac, consider themselves the masters, and that “all of us,” the descendants of Ishmael, are created to serve the Jews. And another blames “the mastermind” — whom he identifies as the Jews as well as the U.S. (which the film earlier claims is dominated by the Jews) for both the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and for the coups in modern Turkey aimed at ousting Islamist leaders and parties.

Finally, an advisor to Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu claims that all anti-government activity in Turkey was, in fact, attempts by “a mastermind” to bring down Turkey and its government.

Laura Rosen Cohen is forceful and impassioned about those Europeans who object to Netanyahu’s call for Continental Jews to leave for Israel. In the most basic sense, she is right: Jews have no future in Europe - because the actions necessary to restore normality to Jewish community life on the Continent will never be taken by its ruling elites. But incremental evil is not as instantly clarifying as ISIS riding into Benghazi and running their black flag up the pole outside City Hall. Jews cannot safely ride the Paris metro with identifying marks of their faith, or walk the streets of Amsterdam, or send their children to school in Toulouse, or attend a bat mitzvah in Copenhagen. As much as those Nigerians and Libyans and Yemenis and Ukrainians, Europe’s Jews are living history rather than reading it. They are living through a strange, freakish coda to the final solution that, quietly and remorselessly, is finishing the job: the total extinction of Jewish life in Europe - and not at the hands of baying nationalist Aryans but a malign alliance of post-national Eutopians and Islamic imperialists. Sure, it’d be nice to read a book - maybe Obama could recommend one on the Crusades. But you’ve got to be careful: in France, in 2015, you can be beaten up for being seen with the wrong kind of book on public transportation. As Max Fisher says, we could all stand to read a little history, and the Jewish Museum in Brussels has a pretty good bookstore, but, if you swing by, try not to pick one of the days when they’re shooting visitors.

This is Europe now, 2015. What will 2016 bring, and 2020, 2025? And yet France or Denmark is all you’ve ever known; you own a house, you’ve got a business, a pension plan, savings accounts… How much of all that are you going to be able to get out with? These are the same questions the Continent’s most integrated Jews - in Germany - faced 80 years ago. Do you sell your home in a hurry and take a loss? Or maybe in a couple of years it’ll all blow over. Or maybe it won’t, and in five years the house price will be irrelevant because you’ll be scramming with a suitcase. Or maybe in ten years you won’t be able to get out at all - like the Yazidi or those Copts.

If you’re living history as opposed to reading it in a sophomoric chatroom with metrosexual eunuch trustiefundies, these are the calculations you make - in Mosul, in Raqaa, in Sirte, in Sana’a, in Donetsk, in Malmö, Rotterdam, Paris…

Zvika Klein: So it started out very calm, you know, I had heads turning and stuff like that. But I could kind of understand because, you know, maybe not everybody in Paris has seen someone or, you know, an orthodox jew. But as time went on and the more I got closer to muslim neighborhoods it started getting very negative. Eh, certain situations where I actually felt scared and frightened. At the end of the day, as you can see, people are looking at me as an orthodox jew and accordingly they don’t know who I am, and they curse ehm they spit on me. So thats a fact: That happened i Paris and it happened in 2015, that it happened just weeks after people where killed just because they where jewish.

C4N: Would you accept for example, that it might also be true that a woman walking through certain parts of Paris in a hejab, or a burkha for example, might experience the same hostility?

Zvika Klein: I’m very happy to discuss and very happy to see things and open up my eyes and I’m more than happy to see what would go on. I would assume wouldn’t spit at her and wouldn’t curse at her because I don’t think the french people, most of them except for the extremists, are like that. So I just don’t think that would happen.

C4N: So you belive as an absolute fact, that people within Paris are more hostile to jewsh people, say, than they might be to other minorities?

Zvika Klein: I think that if we cut down to the actual facts, there are some muslims in France and around Europe that have problems with jews just because they are jewish…

C4N (afbryder): But there are many muslims…

Zvika Klein (gør sin tanke færdig): ..and that’s a problem!

C4N: Sorry to interrupt you. There are many muslims who would say that they are also hounded wihtin parts of Europe.

Zvika Klein: From my standpoint nobody should be harassed because of their religion and religion should be something you can practice anywhere except if it is a religion that teaches you to kill og teaches you not to accept other religions.

C4N: You filmed before the terrible events in Copenhagen. The israeli primeminister Benjamin Netanyahu says jew in Europe should move to Israel, they are not welcome anymore. What do you think about that?

Zvika Klein:As a zionist I’m more than happy for jews to move to Israel. I think that’s what zionism is; it’s encouraging jews to live in Israel and creating,, ehm, we, you know, a little over sixty years ago created a jewish state here in Israel. But the question is; if the jewish community can’t really guard themselves, then maybe it’s time for them to look for something else?

C4N: Just finally: As you say, you are a zionist, you have a particular standpoint. Do you accept what some critics would say, that the video, the way it was done was an act of provocation?

Zvika Klein: I don’t think it should be a provocation because this is the way I dress, I wear a kippa on my head every day, everywhere I go, except certain parts of Europe because I’m afraid for my safety. So I don’t think that could be called a provocation because there is no particular statement here. I wouldn’t recommend my friends in Europe to walk around with this on their head because it’s dangerous. And it doesn’t represent a situation in France, it represent a part of a situation a hundred percent.

Zvika Klein: I think that’s why we got this attention. I think anything that creates discussion is a positive thing, so I see that as something positive discussing this and people are open to debate to see what is going on, how the situation could be better. Because I think that everybody agrees that there is a very big problem in France now. Just walk the streets of Paris you see it for yourselves. They are on red alert, they are afraid of another attack happening. So something has to be done, the question is what.

“And the 1930s should have reminded us that Jews are usually among the first — but not the last — to be targeted by terrorists, thugs, and autocrats.” skriver Victor Davis Hansen.

One month after the terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, NRG’s correspondent, wearing a tzitzit and a kippa, took what proved to be an intimidating walk across the French capital. “What is he doing here Mommy? Doesn’t he know he will be killed?” one little boy asked, saying it all

PARIS – “Go f*** from the front and the back,” “Viva Palestine,” “Hey you, with the kippa, what are you doing here?” these were only a few of the remarks sent my way as I was walking through the streets of Paris wearing a tzitzit and a kippa.

Welcome to Paris 2015, where soldiers are walking every street that houses a Jewish institution, and where keffiyeh-wearing men and veiled women speak Arabic on every street corner. Walking down one Parisian suburb, I was asked what I doing there. In modern-day Paris, you see, Jews are barred from entering certain areas.

(…)

At times it was like walking in downtown Ramallah. Most women were wearing a veil or a hijab, most men appeared to be Muslim, and Arabic was prevalent everywhere. We decided ahead of time that I was to walk through these areas quietly, without stopping anywhere, without speaking to anyone, without so much as looking sideways. My heart was pounding and negative thoughts were running through my head. I would be lying if I said I was not afraid.

“Just like Ramallah”

Walking into a public housing neighborhood, we came across a little boy and his hijab-clad mother, who were clearly shocked to see us. “What is he doing here Mommy? Doesn’t he know he will be killed?” the boy asked.

Walking by a school in one of Paris’ neighborhoods, a boy shouted “Viva Palestine” at me. Moments later, passing by a group of teens, one of the girls remarked, “Look at that – it’s the first time I’ve ever seen such a thing.”

Walking down another neighborhood, a driver stopped his car and approached us. “We’ve been made,” I thought. “What are you doing here?” he asked. “We’ve had reports that you were walking around our neighborhood – you’re not from around here.”